Optimal Component Sizing for Peak Shaving in Battery Energy Storage System for Industrial Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent attention to industrial peak shaving applications sparked an increased interest in battery energy storage. Batteries provide a fast and high power capability, making them an ideal solution for this task. This work proposes a general framework for sizing of battery energy storage system (BESS) in peak shaving applications. A cost-optimal sizing of the battery and power electronics is derived using linear programming based on local demand and billing scheme. A case study conducted with real-world industrial profiles shows the applicability of the approach as well as the return on investment dependence on the load profile. At the same time, the power flow optimization reveals the best storage operation patterns considering a trade-off between energy purchase, peak-power tariff, and battery aging. This underlines the need for a general mathematical optimization approach to efficiently tackle the challenge of peak shaving using an energy storage system. The case study also compares the applicability of yearly and monthly billing schemes, where the highest load of the year/month is the base for the price per kW. The results demonstrate that batteries in peak shaving applications can shorten the payback period when used for large industrial loads. They also show the impacts of peak shaving variation on the return of investment and battery aging of the system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".